First I’ll start by saying that I’m posting here because this typically comes up in conversations surrounding hunting optics, not usually range/target optics.
There seems to be a fairly prevalent prejudice against high magnification for medium to big game hunting rifles, and I’d like to know why.
Recently there was post right here on this forum by a good fellow planning an elk hunt on or around the west coast region. He mentioned having a 4-12 power optic, and in the ensuing responses there were at least 3 comments that implied, or boldly stated, that he had too much magnification. One went so far to recommend a 2-7x optic.
This school of thought typically shows up right around a max of 9x. As soon as someone goes over 9x, he’s overpowered for hunting. Why?
Is it that if he can see farther than that, he’s taking risky shots? Is that his baseline will be too magnified for getting a shot of at bear charging from 20 yards? I can see the rationale behind these possible answers, but I’m not convinced.
I currently have a Leupold 4-12x40 on my primary hunting rifle, a 7mm-08. Before that I had 4-16x44 Vortex, which has since been relegated to my .223 bolt rifle for varmint hunting. I also have an old Barska 6-20 on my .243 which is a crossover varmint-to-deer rifle, but rarely used for deer. I generally hunt deer between 40 and 300 yards. 4 power is no problem for the close stuff, and for the far stuff, I like to be able to see as much as I can. I like the 16x for really getting the “lay of the land” on the shoulder/rib region of a hefty whitetail. Also, increased magnification helps gage movement when you’re trying to hold steady. And if you know you’re rifle, the more you can see, the more precisely you can pick your shot.
So what is the huge problem with increased magnification that seems to have so many people adamantly against it?
There seems to be a fairly prevalent prejudice against high magnification for medium to big game hunting rifles, and I’d like to know why.
Recently there was post right here on this forum by a good fellow planning an elk hunt on or around the west coast region. He mentioned having a 4-12 power optic, and in the ensuing responses there were at least 3 comments that implied, or boldly stated, that he had too much magnification. One went so far to recommend a 2-7x optic.
This school of thought typically shows up right around a max of 9x. As soon as someone goes over 9x, he’s overpowered for hunting. Why?
Is it that if he can see farther than that, he’s taking risky shots? Is that his baseline will be too magnified for getting a shot of at bear charging from 20 yards? I can see the rationale behind these possible answers, but I’m not convinced.
I currently have a Leupold 4-12x40 on my primary hunting rifle, a 7mm-08. Before that I had 4-16x44 Vortex, which has since been relegated to my .223 bolt rifle for varmint hunting. I also have an old Barska 6-20 on my .243 which is a crossover varmint-to-deer rifle, but rarely used for deer. I generally hunt deer between 40 and 300 yards. 4 power is no problem for the close stuff, and for the far stuff, I like to be able to see as much as I can. I like the 16x for really getting the “lay of the land” on the shoulder/rib region of a hefty whitetail. Also, increased magnification helps gage movement when you’re trying to hold steady. And if you know you’re rifle, the more you can see, the more precisely you can pick your shot.
So what is the huge problem with increased magnification that seems to have so many people adamantly against it?